tdaxp

One of the most exhausting, if fulfilling, aspects of covering the Dozier Internet Law imbroglio (you know, the company that got caught red handed sending threatening super-secret cease-and-desists) is the sheer quantity of blog posts that need to be covered.

Brendan of I Hate Linux comes out with two new posts:
In "Dozier Internet Law actions indirectly limiting research?," he complains how Dozier's record of negative publicity makes it hard to do his own research on the company.
The day before, he wrote, "A double standard from John Dozier," apparently finding John "John Kerry" Dozier in a flip-flop.

The Blog of M'Gath takes a break from following dozier to note Consumer Reports' views of DirectBuy -- the home improvement company that hired Dozier.

Additionally, Fair Use Day picked up the Ars Techncia summary of the case, while I note that Public Citizen Litigation Group lists "DirectBuy and their lawyers at Dozier Internet Law in their "miscellaneous internet free speech cases" section.

Finally, the tdaxp network is busy, as well. Besides a daysworth of headlines at Jim River Report, Dozier Internet Lawsuits is go!

Gary McGath, who doesn't pronounce the "c" in The Blog of M'Gath, is the latest online journalist to cover the Dozier Internet Law public-relations disaster.

Everything that Gary writes is so good is is hard to know what to excerpt. I hope he doesn't mind a longer-than-usual blockquote, simply because everything is so well done:

Direct Buy, not liking the fact that infomercialscams.com was letting people post their complaints about it, had Dozier Internet Law, P.C., send a cease and desist letter (PDF) demanding that the reports be removed, as well as demanding unspecified compensation.

The letter claims that the following are "defamatory statements":

• "Direct Buy Nightmare" -- www.informercialscams.com;


• * "all scams are posted uncensored!" -- www.infomercialscams.com;


• * "You are reporting the following SCAM" -- www.infomercialscams.com; and


• * "Recently, we noticed a sudden influx of 4 and 5 star ratings for the Direct Buy
  program ... We don't know if Direct Buy is behind this or not. But we do have our suspicious given the fact that the reviews came from the SAME LOCATION, say the same thing, and highlight points that most customers wouldn't be concerned with." -- www.informercialblog.com

The letter doesn't deny the specific scamming activity which Direct Buy is accused of, yet it categorically states that the last claim is "utterly false and without merit." How does Dozier know that there was no such influx from a single location? Does he have access to the site's logs?

Just by the way, Dozier Internet Law presumably would regard me as a "letter pirate" for having quoted the above text.

(Perhaps the reason I like Gary's post is so much is that we think the same -- my reaction was pretty similar in my first post, DirectBuy and Dozier Internet Law SLAPPS Infomercial Scams.com).

One of the hardest things about following the John Dozier scandal (well, the latest scandal, with DirectBuy -- I've only done one post each on their handling of the SecureComputer and CuppyCoffee suits is the scale of the blogosphere's response.

Besides Sean's summary of DirectBuy's malfeasance, a whole slew of blogs picked up the Ars Technica summary:

Blue's News
Corporate critics feel the stinging lash of DMCA misuse.

Digg, Electronics Almanace, and Technology Owl:
Two recent cases show that companies aren't always fans of criticism, and some will file misguided DMCA notices and defamation cases to scrub it from the Internet.

Techno Blogo
...a company called DirectBuy (perhaps you've seen their infomercials on TV) accused the owner of infomercialscams.com of defaming it by allowing critical postings that label the company a "scam" or a "nightmare."...

That's it for now!

I Hate Linux has a fascinating article, which was also featured on the Jim River Report, on Dozier Internet Law.... before their meltdown on the DirectBuy threats, before they so damaged Cuppy's Coffee's reputation that CC needed to higher a P.R. firm.... there was Secure Computer, LLC.

The case featured all the usual nonsense from Dozier. Just like they publiclly squabble with blogs while DirectBuy's reputation suffers, they issued press releases in the SecureComputer case. In separate suits, Microsoft and the State of Washington sued Secure Computer," so Secure Computer made the mistake of contracting Dozier Internet Law.

If you've been reading this blog over the past few days, you know what a mistake that is.

Secure Computer's nightwmare continues, as the Microsoft case drags on. But SecureComputer already had to pull its product from the market and pay one million dollars to the State of Washington.

In a discussion forum on this blog, former Dozier law firm employees complained about the bad working environment at the company. With victories like SecureComputer, Cuppy's Coffee, and DirectBuy under their belt, no wonder Dozier employees are not happy!

Dozier Intenret Law is tied to the world of plagiarism in three ways. One is by coincidence. The other by suspicion. The last is indisputable.

Coincidentally, the story of Dozier acting as hired thugs for DirectBuy has been picked up by Plagiarism Today. The article goes into some depth, link to the four factors of fair use and is very worth reading.

By suspicion, the open letter posted on Dozier's home page cites cases first uncovered by Curtis Weeks, as I discussed in my preliminary case study. It is these stories that let Dozier post "UK Court finds that business dispute demand letter protected by copyright laws" as "Latest News" at the firm's homepage. But ultimately, such cases may be straightforward to find, so nothing can be proven.

Indisputably,, the rant by John Dozier posted on New York Personal Injury Law Blog includes material lifted, without attribution, from lawdit.co.uk (Curtis found this, too!).

Why anyone would want to hire a lawyer that's so apt destroying their client's reputation and violationg the copyright of others is beyond me.

Ars Technica, a popular website on the technical arts that includes breaking news, user forums, and other features, prominently features the Dozier Internet Law / DirectBuy scandal by comparing it to another bizarre lawsuit.

The Ars Technica article focuses mostly on the contributions of Public Citizen and Willam Patry (who, I learned, is also Google' top copyright lawyer).

One of the hardest things about following the story is how quickly people are coming forward. Wicked Boring discusses this as a strategic lawsuit against public participation, New York Attorney Malpractice Blog quotes an length an earlier essay, Citizen Media Law Project is not impressed, and Curtis (who previously discovered by John Dozier is a plagiarist) tries to throw cold water on collective non-violenct self defense

• Free Speech and Copyright


• Comment on 'Lawfare and Public Participation'


• Comment on 'Lawfare Backlash'

That's it for now!

The DirectBuy home improvement firm has been the subject of numerous investigations, and Dozier Internet Law's "cyberlawyers" mishandling of a client's case made the Franchise Times. So both companies are used to bad publicity from their business practices. Now it appears that their lawsuit against Infomercial Scams (check out the Public Citizen and tdaxp summaries) is creeping ever so close to mainstream media coverage.

Walter Olson of Overlawyered, who appears on Fox News, Headline News, and other shows as a legal expert, has an excellent case on the Direct Buy / Dozier case titled "Nastygram: Don't you dare post this nastygram on the web."

Read it.

Additionally, South Dakota Politics, a blog featured prominently in the real-life election thriller Daschle vs. Thune, also joins the fray.

And if all that isn't enough to attract your attention, John Dozier's bizarre public statements have attracted a second post by Public Citizen.

Aside from my initial post, the blog reactions to DirectBuy and Dozier Internet Law I have posted have all been before Public Citizen and Slashdot got into the debate. (For the background of the story, check out my preliminary case study.)

As time goes on, though, more and more bloggers are picking up the story of the DirectBuy / Dozier Internet Law strategic lawsuit against public participation.

Modemac briefly writes "Direct Buy sends a threatening letter to infomercialblog.com, then threatens the blog author for copyright violation if he dares to publish the letter itself on his site'" whereas Patry Copyright Blog writes an encyclopedia article on the case.

I Hate Linux has published a follow-up to his first post on the scandal, while Primrose Road has taken notice, as well.

Additionally, a poster over at the 13th Man Direct Buy's tactics "enlightening."

Legal Research Blog and The Consumer post their thoughts, too, for good measure.

Jim River Report has headlines reading "Attention: Dozier Internet Law," "Dozier Internet Law," and "DirectBuy."

The best follow-up, however is Curtis's discovery that John Dozier's comment on behalf of Dozier Internet Law was partially plagiarized from another web site, in violation of their terms-of-use and copyright! Ha ha ha!

! ! This is a developing news story. Facts are subject to change without notice ! !

Dozier Internet Law, "cyber trail lawyers," is a law firm founded by John W. Dozier, Jr. in Virginia. They were prominently featured in an excellent article by Franchise Times reporter Julie Bennet. Bennet's article discussed mysterious tactics that Dozier uses, and the backlash it geneates. Indeed, Julie article is titled "Attacks from the blogosphere: What Cuppy's learned the hard way" because Cuppy's problems started because of Dozier's mishandling of their case.

In spite of being aware of the "finesse, strategy, and tactics" required when operating with online journals and news magazines, Cuppy's Coffee Company was forced to higher a P.R. firm to undo the damage cased by Dozier Internet Law.

Recently, Dozier was hired by DirectBuy to deal with negative feedback on three websites: Infomercial Blog, Infomercial Ratings, and Infomercial Scams. Dozier, on behalf of DirectBuy, send a copyrighted cease-and-desist letter (excerpts, full text, original pdf) that was challenged by Public Citizen, the public advocacy group founded by Ralph Nader.

Failures have a way of repeating themselves, and again Dozier is harming its clients reputation. This time, though, Dozier Internet Law finds itself being discussed, as well. The top ten search results for the firm include Slashdot's influent post, "How not to write a cease-and-desist letter," critical legal analysis from New York Personal Injury Blog, strategic analysis from Dreaming Fifth Generation War, and two results from tdaxp (one on letter-writer Donald Morris and another describing DirectBuy/Dozier's actions as a strategic lawsuit against public participation).

Overnight, Dozier responded with two letters. One is written to Eric Turkewitz. After apparently plagiarizing original research done on this blog by Curtis Weeks, John Dozier writes:

Unfortunately, the subject on which you have been blogging is a matter of first impression in the US, but your inappropriate insults demean you and our profession. Accident lawyers should stay out of copyright infringement cases, particularly if one is just trying to generate more business by getting a higher Google ranking to sign up more accident victims. That wouldn't be your motivation, of course. Feel free to call me to discuss the matter.

The other, written to Greg Beck of Public Citizen's "Consumer Law and Policy Blog" and available online (http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/dozier-internet-law), reads in part:

Let’s consider the problem. Today someone checking out a business will do a search and the results will include references to the company being a "scam". The potential customer goes to the scam site and is presented with advertising from competitors either through banner ads or pay per click ads (adsense from Google is a prime example). The website owner generates income when the ads are presented or clicked on, and diverts the business to a competitor. The content is often created by the website itself or its associates and cohorts, and with your advice as to how to cover up the tracks of the poster these sites can assure anonymity and protect themselves by claiming the posts came from third parties and the site is immune from liability pursuant to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Some (most?) of these sites are extortion rackets. Businesses are told to pay protection fees, often in excess of $10,000 each month, in order for the posts to be removed and also, of course, to make sure that future negative posts stop. Once these payments are made the negative comments disappear, and for some odd reason no one ever has anything negative to say about the company on that site anymore. This is no different than running a protection racket. “Pay us a fee each month”, some of these sites demand, “and bad things won’t happen to you again”.

Yet, for some reason, despite claiming that you do not accept corporate contributions, these types of businesses are defended by you and your organization, and of course it is easy for these businesses to contribute to your organization. Some link directly to your contribution page and encourage payments of money directly to Public Citizen. Kind of like advertising through affiliate marketers, don’t you think? No wonder you claim that these “scam” sites are operating within the legal bounds of the law. No wonder you claim that even posts of the site owner are protected from liability, even in the face of unequivocally clear law that owner generated content is not covered by the immunity provisions of the Communications Decency Act. Many of these sites trade off of creating and/or publishing defamatory content, which is unlawful content, and some are violating criminal laws by running extortion rackets. You should not be supporting these practices.

It's hard to know what to make of this. Is Dozier charging DirectBuy for these letters? If so, what legal purpose do they serve? If not, does Dozier believing a P.R. role does not distract from its litigious role? Is Dozier Internet Law in any way increasing DirectBuy's legal risk by personally attacking attorneys, or is it acting like a good-faith caretaker for DirectBuy reputation by such inflamatory statements?

I don't know what is going on. My assumption is that John Dozier (who likes to brag about the number of conferences he attends --- see his letter to Eric) is a "people person," which means that he has little control over displaying his emotions. When he's happy or sociable, this is a good thing -- everyone likes to see someone who is so happy he can't contain himself, or so sociable that he bounces from conference room to conference room. But (and I am just guessing here) when he is angry or ticked off, he can't control that, either. Which explains why (without a good reason and wit plenty of malice) he can attack Public Citizen and Eric Turcowitz so viciously, so publicly, and so vilely against his client's interest.

If you would have told me I would feel sorry for DirectBuy so quickly after first covering this story, I would have laughed. Direct Buy creates spam web sites, has been criticized by , Channel 12 News in Arizona, Team 5 in Boston, WCBS in New York, CTV in Canada, and many blogs and web sites besides, and that's before the avalanche of criticism they received from intimidating Infomercial Scams.

But it's clear that their law firm is no good. If their experience is like Cuppy Coffee's, they just googled for a lawyer and found Dozier Internet Law. They found a lawyer who is better at destroying his client's, and his, reputation than in actually making things better.

Too bad.

For those joining late: DirectBuy is a "home improvement" company with a mixed track record. There's a number of mixed reviews of their services, available from both blogs and mainstream media outlets. More recently, after a blogger at Infomercial Scams complained about Direct Buy's infomercial scam, DirectBuy's lawyer, Dozier Internet Law, sent him an incompetently written "cease-and-desist" letter that was copyrighted! This "strategic lawsuit against public participation" would be more threatening if it was filed by such "chuckleheads."

Then blogs stand up. Public Citizen exposed the DirectBuy/Dozier threat, I Hate Linux asked to be sued too, and I posted the plain text of the demand letter.

Unfortunately, DirectBuy generates so many spam websites that it is hard to find out opinions about the company. Therefore, this post contains mainstream media and blogosphere reviews of Direct Buy that did not make it into my previous posts

From the Mainstream Media:

• Team 5 Investigates DirectBuy."


• WCBS TV reaches a similar conclusion."


• Direct Buy: One Man's Story (From CTV, Canada) (thanks to Jeremy's Thoughts for the link

From the Internet:

Over at Mafe Maria, a long complaint against DirectBuy's deceptive hard sell includes includes this paragraph:

The poor woman doesn’t know that both Joey and I are fricking MBAs and have spent a ridiculous amount of our lives making a living out of understanding concepts like the present value of money and financial risk… Who can guarantee us that they’ll still be around in 2-3 years?… That manufacturers won’t get off that business model in 2-5 years, when we may be ready to buy, finally taking advantage of our extremely expensive upfront investment? Why would we put down $4,500 now, when we’re not ready to redecorate yet, so the savings are uncertain, and most likely far ahead in the future?